Responding to the Most Common Arguments for God’s Existence

While not a common named argument, one of the most common arguments is the argument from trees. “If God didn’t make trees why are trees so beautiful?” (insert anything for trees here, and insert many numinous or ineffable feelings for beautiful, “Can you look at a newborn baby and still believe God doesn’t exist?”).

if you argue that everything has to have been created, then you’ll run into the problem of who created God

The Kalam avoids this by not saying that everything has to have been created. The first premise is usually “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”, so the get out is that God did not begin to exist.

That’s just the usual special pleading. If you take god out of the boundaries set for everything else, there is no reason why the universe couldn’t have always existed in some other form.

Human centered arguments are flawed from the start. I think you missed something for the Kalam discussion; define something and nothing, then prove either of them exist. If you can prove there is something, you cannot prove there is nothingness. To even state that something came from nothing is a lie, a preface to a crime. To state that it must be logically true that if there is something there must also be a nothing is unsupportable, untrue, and patently misleading. The assertion of the big bang says nothing about what caused it, only that this appears to be how the existence we know of came to be as it is currently. for all we know, our universe could be just one bubble in the watery splash of a child jumping in mud puddles of another existence. To argue that you know why this universe/existence exists is bizarre and deceitful… even if we think we understand how it came to be in the state it is in currently. This argument is easily dismissed because of the vulgarity of its assumptions. Human kind has never seen ‘nothingness’ as we understand that term. There is no starting point for this argument. Even if one argues that logically, if something exists there must be a quality that is nothingness yet you can not prove such a state ever existed. From the perspective of a fish, air is nothingness.

Anthropic principle? Define intelligent? We humans may indeed be incompatible with intelligent life because our universe is not tuned just right. To assume that this existence that we know is the pinnacle of ‘existence’ is flawed and wrong. It is merely all that we can imagine. To argue that this existence is some immeasurable truth is  to simply argue from ignorance. Believers in fact argue that this existence is not the pinnacle of existence, and that they alone will move on to the perfect existence. They might have a point though, non-existence has a kind of perfection to it. To argue that the state of physical laws supports the notion that an all powerful deity exists is criminal for such a being could cause us to exist despite the state of physical laws.

All the arguments for gods make unsupportable suppositions or simply argue from ignorance. Truth has nothing to do with gods, they are incompatible so far as can be shown. Theists themselves argue in my favor. 

I think a brief acknowledgment to the Cosmological Argument should be made that, at some point, there have to be some sort of physical laws that “come from nothing”, or at least that we cannot answer “why”.  Even if you talk about a foaming bubbling multiverse where all possible universes and all sets of physical laws potentially exist, you still need laws governing the behavior of the multiverse.

I suspect that this is only existentially dissatisfying because of a cognitive defect in the way we think about the universe.  But it does have to be acknowledged that, at some point in the long chain of “whys”, there will be an answer which is not intuitively existentially satisfying to most people.

Religion can do no better, of course.  “Goddidit” is even less existentially satisfying, if you think about it.  But it’s worth acknowledging that even though physicists can describe how “something comes from nothing”, there’s still this niggling question we humans are impelled to ask about why those physical properties are they way they are.  Maybe the questions are meaningless, but for some reason we want to as them anyway.

Saying that “something can’t come out of nothing” is wrong anyways – or it depends on a misconception of “nothing”. It happens all the time. Virtual particles pop into existence constantly and almost immediately disappear again. The subatomic world depends on that to function. They are often exchange particles of fundamental forces. Virtual photons play a major role in many physical concepts. But occasionally they have some larger consequences, such as the Casimir effect.

And technically, physical laws don’t govern anything. They don’t cause anything. They just describe how things happen. Laws are a man-made abstraction, not a force of nature

The question ‘Do you believe in God’ to me always begs the question — What is the definition of ‘God.’ For example, all primitive cultures have some kind of Creation myth, where God or gods create the earth, and perhaps suggest rites, rituals, and morals onto Humanity.

Once that creation myth is abandoned, what is left in the Religious mythology, that one would cling to? Is One’s religion no more that a collection of Morality Plays, teaching granted – important questions, or does one have a untestable, unprovable belief in a supernatural element? Ex: does the Soul exist, is there an Afterlife? Does the Christian Scientist, for example avoid medical care, because it’s seen as abandoning God? Does the Catholic avoid divorce because Marriage means God led him/her to this spouse, and God wouldn’t make a mistake?

Let’s just say this: God should know what it would take to convince me. He should also know what wouldn’t be convincing to me and wouldn’t be attributable to mere coincidence or circumstance.

If Bob is a theist who wants to convince me, he could also do this: pray to his god, and ask him/her/it what it thinks would be the best way to convince me. If it works and I’m convinced, his prayer has worked and God would have revealed himself to me through Bob. Otherwise, he was just another theist using faulty arguments against a practiced skeptic mind.

An additional problem with the ontological argument is it implicitly assumes the ordering relationship is for a join-semilattice. However, unless the person is a math major, they won’t understand what that means, and are unlikely to sit through an explanation that boils down to translating “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” into set theory.

The fine-tuning argument also involves the implicit assumption of “life as we know it”; and for that matter, most biologists will (if you put a few drinks in them, pin them into a corner, and twist their arm) admit that the concept of “life” is not very precisely demarcated, any more than membership in a “species” is. There’s some things that pretty obviously fall in the category, and others that pretty obviously fall out, but there are some (such as viruses) that fall in or out of the category depending on what biologist you talk to.

I’d also add that the “argument from design” neglects the degree that design is itself an evolutionary process — a point even most engineers don’t notice, but that is exceedingly obvious in the history of technology in any detailed study of the invention process.

That’s an incredibly random chance that all factors in the universe and on this little blue planet to be just right. For the naturists, isn’t that their job, to tell me how life could have existed without a Creator? 

What is the definition of evolution? What is the definition of genetic mutation? Are gene mutations good or bad?

You’re assuming God is like santa clause or a genie who answers our wishes.  I don’t know all about God, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t how He normally works

What gets me is, how many Christians actually came to the religion through any of these arguments? My guess if very few.

Evolution by natural selection isn’t random. That’s the whole point. Never mind that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of life

The solution to the problem of my children disobeying my rules was to kick my firstborn out of the house. Since that didn’t fix him I decided to just drown my second child. After that I just resorted to stoning them until they listened.

My wife is pretty tired of having children that have to be killed but I remind her that it is her lot in life to do exactly as I say. If she is disobedient I will stone her as well and get a new one that will listen.

Have you actually read the bible? The only thing it proves is that if there is a god he is a deplorable creature completely unworthy of anyone’s love or respect. He is a violent, egotistical dictator.

Basically, if he is real and if you worship him, you are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

It’s not that “incredible”.  There are billions of galaxies in our universe.  There are billions of stars in each galaxy.  This gives us trillions of opportunities for the factors to be right for life to develop around many, many stars.

The definition of evolution-small changes over time leading to larger changes.  In biology, this causes a slow, subtle change in a species over millions of years.

The definition of genetic mutation-an error in the DNA copying process, resulting in genetic coding that is different from what would normally be passed on.

Gene mutations can be “good” or “bad”, depending on the effect they have on the organism.  If a mutation causes an animal to be born with stump legs or without eyes, that’s “bad” because it will probably result in the death of the animal (though it might be “good” because those faulty genes should not be passed on).  If a mutation causes an animal to be born with slightly longer and more agile legs, or with improved eyesight, then that is definitely “good”.  It will likely result in that organism being more successful than its cousins, and it will pass its improvements on to its offspring.

After millions of years, these little changes build up, and eventually the offspring no longer resemble their ancient ancestors very much.  Voila, a new species has evolved.

Ah, yes my favorite..a classic.  In a perfect Dawkinsian universe:  Chaotic; empty; unsympathetic and perfectly random.  Undefined and immeasurable particles of matter RANDOMLY passed from existence to “unexistence”  continuously , UNTIL sufficient numbers of these particles RANDOMLY AND COLLECTIVELY EXISTED SIMULTANEOUSLY in order to enact the big bang.  I’m not arguing the big bang, but that is a lot of coincidental randomness.  And  depending on  which disciple of Dawkins that you research some or all of these particles existed and unexisted CONCURRENTLY…which is  some serious Dr. Who/Star Trek  sh@ t!   There is yet no explanation to the exist/don’t exist moments or why this phenomenon no longer occurs.   The mathematical odds against these phenomenon occurring randomly and in the order they needed to for life to appear anywhere in the universe is staggering.  The odds that they occur two or more times is astronomical.  It doesn’t exactly push Thomas Aquinas completely out of the picture.

Then the real question remains, why are there blind people?

No, we wouldn’t believe them because you don’t provide any evidence to back them up.  Why should we believe some random person that they witnessed a miracle, when they can’t provide any proof this occurred?  

Names, dates, medical records, contemporaneous news articles, television reports, medical articles; any of these would lend some weight to your story.  Or does trying to confirm what you say count as ‘hardening our hearts towards Him’?

Have you ever played the Assassin’s Creed games? Do so. In particular the second and onwards. Watch the endings.

Something like that happened to me, I’d be damn well convinced there was some kind of god.

If the Biblical god doesn’t perform on demand, then please explain 1 Kings 18:23-29. 

The whole point of the test was that Elijah could get his god to perform on demand, but the priests of Ba’al couldn’t do it. Thus Ba’al was deemed to not really be a god, because he wouldn’t light the barbecue.

For one (of many) thing, Momma J, you’re making several key mistakes in your understanding of probability.

For instance, the odds of something happening are generally based not only on the odds of an individual occurrence, but on the number of opportunities.  So we don’t talk about the Earth as if it were pre-selected for life, but rather, ask, “What are the odds that the process of planet formation could yield a planet in this set of parameters?  Okay, now, how many instances of planetary formation have occurred since the beginning of the Universe?  Okay, THERE is the odds of ‘this little blue planet’ to be ‘just right’.”

And, beyond that, you’re assuming that certain constants need to be within a narrow range for life to occur, but there’s no real reason to believe that many of them could not be drastically different–that the ‘ideal’ temperature, amount of light, atmospheric conditions, mineral presence, etc., might not all be wildly altered and still capable of producing a form of life–not one we currently have on Earth, maybe not one we would instantly recognize as ‘alive’ until we’d observed it long enough to determine that it was, indeed, replicating–but life, none the less.

As for “Are gene mutations good or bad?”, it’s a silly, silly question, formed entirely from a blend of ignorance and arrogance.  To be clear, the answer is “Both, neither, or either, depending on the circumstances at the time.”

” Because the Bible says you’ve hardened your heart towards Him.”
Interestingly, the Bible Actually says, in most translations, that God caused the Pharoah to harden his heart, so that God could make all of his miracles and look great and powerful to his people.  That was actually the passage that ultimately decided me against him.  I don’t care if he exists or he doesn’t in my daily life, but I won’t worship him, because he is evil.  If I ever found out that he did exist, and that he Was the way that he is described in the Bible, I would spend the rest of my existence (how little or long it was), attempting to overthrow him.    Fortunately, I also believe that the Bible was simply written by men, a culmination text of a rich and long history of oral tradition from a primitive society, and that is is simply their values that we are being told are absolutes.  

You are SO right asonge. How can we look at a newborn baby and still not believe in Allah! Or is it Buddha? Yahweh? Quetzalcoatl? Jesus? Thor? Krishna? Oh come on! Who is it we’re supposed to believe in?! 

Please. 

I really like this response. I had never thought of it that way.

You see, this is exactly what makes religion look inane.

First off, adding in ALL CAPS doesn’t make your argument work any better at all, and to many of us, it simply makes you look either desperate or childish. Just a little tip.

Second, Dawkins is a biologist, and actually proposed nothing that you mentioned whatsoever. While he’s one of the most outspoken atheists around, the value is in being highly visible and concise, not in anything in particular that he’s said.

Chaotic, no – everything actually follows some simple forces; look up “fundamental interactions.” Empty, no. Unsympathetic, yes – emotions are subconscious guides of only living things. Random, no – see above. That’s two sentences and four (perhaps five) fails so far.

Then who the hell knows what it is you’re talking about next, but reading something about the Big Bang might actually help your arguments work a little better. Those of us who know even a few details about cosmology find this to be nothing but an ignorant rant. The things that you seem to believe are random occurrences, aren’t.

What you might want to consider the most, however, is that cosmological theories predicted numerous discoveries long before we had the ability to make them (black holes, cosmic microwave background, star life, gravitational lensing, etc.) while theology not only predicts nothing, it provides nothing but excuses. Aquinas, if you read carefully, provided no new information whatsoever; he merely tried to fit what we already knew into scripture that was assumed true, and merely waved away that which he couldn’t explain.

“That’s an incredibly random chance that all factors in the universe and on this little blue planet to be just right.”

No, not really. You should probably find out how probability actually works. Part of this was addressed in the original post that you, apparently, did not actually read. The “just right” conditions that you speak of are actually quite easy to come by, given the common proportions of raw materials in the universe and a given distance from the star. Simple energy exchanges that we call “life” are a whole lot less complicated than the fusion from stars that produces different elements in the first place.

Of course, what I really want to hear myself is the probability of some omnipotent being existing, and how that is calculated…

“For the naturists, isn’t that their job, to tell me how life could have existed without a Creator?”

“Naturist” is, loosely, another term for “nudist.” I suspect the word you wanted was “naturalist,” which still doesn’t fit, since they study how nature works, or more specifically, how species interact and react to their environment. Evolutionary biologists that study abiogenesis is what you’re after with that statement. Why, what do you want to know about RNA and protein formation?

“What is the definition of evolution? What is the definition of genetic mutation?”

Google is your friend.

“Are gene mutations good or bad?”

Neither – ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are human value judgments, and only apply if you have a goal in mind. A genetic mutation that provides for more efficiency, better adaptation to the environment, or more preferred sexual traits stands the greatest chance of being passed on to offspring. There’s really nothing else to it.

It might interest you to know (or not, I suspect) that change, adaptation, survival, disease, competition, predation, and extinction are all completely pointless concepts for a designed universe. Yet they make perfect sense in an undirected one governed only by physical laws.

It might not be a very strong argument, but I often think that the existence of God is contradicted by the existence of apologists.

Step back and look at all this argumentation for the existence of the biggest, most powerful, most important, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Proposition of Propositions. Why the heck are would something as puny as an argument be necessary to show it exists??

There are no apologists for the sun. You don’t need to come up with a long-winded,   elaborate, delicate, circuitous, fanciful, and ultimately flawed argument to support the proposition that the sun exists; you just need to step outside and see its brightness and feel its warmth.  You can study its movement, structure, changing weather patterns, spectrum, chemistry, temperature, and inner processes. You can use its radiation, manipulate its energy into different forms, collect it, disperse it, and block it off entirely. You can see the family resemblance in bigger, smaller, older, younger, brighter, dimmer, hotter, and colder suns that are farther away, and you can make rational predictions of the way it will age as time goes on.

But the one thing you don’t need to do is to argue that it’s there.

OK, so then you’re disputing premise 2: “The universe began to exist”. The point is that “who created God?” is not a valid response to the Kalam.

The universe in its current form began to exist. But the current hypothesis is that some kind of singularity or quantum state existed before and that fluctuations in it led to the expansion of space-time. By the same logic that says god is eternal, that singularity could have existed “before” (as much as it possible to talk about “before”)

This is one of my usual responses for the fine tuning argument:

Let’s say that you went outside on a windy day and stood in a grassy field. You have with you a small bag of flour. You waited until a strong gust of wind and started throwing flour in the air until it is all gone. One particle of this flour was lofted high by the wind and was carried almost a mile before it came to rest against a blade of grass. The way it sat on the leaf helped it trap a small amount of moisture the following evening. The wind also brought in a wild yeast spore that upon landing where the flour particle landed found both water and food, in the form of  flour, and began to grow.

Now for this yeast spore to grow in this way and at this spot an incredibly complex set of circumstances had to take place. You had to be standing on a certain spot in a certain field and thrown the flour at a certain precise point in time. If the wind that carried the particle had dropped in force by the smallest amount it would not have carried it as far as it had and would not have deposited it on a certain piece of grass. If the particle had not landed as it did it might not have clung to the grass. If the particle had not sat at a precise elevation and orientated exactly as it did along it’s x, y, and z axises, it would not have trapped the moisture that caught the yeast spore and provided it with all it needed to grow and reproduce.

Now the odds of the spore reproducing in that exact location at that exact point in time are astronomical. I doubt that even the largest supercomputer that we now have could figure them out exactly. Yet there it is. And let’s not forget that we haven’t even considered the complex set of circumstances that brought the spore to that precise location as well or the odds that the yeast that produced that spore would find conditions that allowed it to reproduce and release it into the wind at the right time and location for it to find it’s way to the flour particle. You can look at the odds and declare that there is no way this could not happen with someone guiding the process but the fact it happened proves that it is indeed possible.

The fact is that the circumstances and the laws of physics determined how this journey played out. Much like the puddle that determines that the hole it rests in must have been designed for it since it fits it so perfectly, the creationist looks at the universe and declares that it must have been designed for them. We were shaped by the universe and not we by it.

You can shape this argument to fit whoever you are talking to and where you happen to be. If in a restaurant, take a pinch of salt and toss it on the table and ponder the odds of a particular grain of it ended up in the precise position it rests in. If at home, toss some toothpicks and pick one to use as an example. The fact of it is that things happen despite the incredible odds against them from doing so every moment of every day, all without a guiding hand.

1)Rules making sense:
     Of course the rules are supposed to make sense. But try sitting      down with a 2 year old and telling them not to run in the street by      themselves or else they might get killed. The 2-yr old child may: a)      Not believe you b/c they have no experience to draw from b) Might      simply be disobedient for whatever reason or c) Not be able to      understand the consequences of such actions. Reason is not a       strong suit for most 2 year olds. This is one of the biggest       differences b/w adults and children, cognitively speaking,      is that adults can think through the consequences and children      are still developing that ability. 
     And so it stands to reason that a parent’s rules can makes sense to 
     the parent, but might not makes sense to the child.

2) Ridiculous laws:
 By not studying the Bible, it’s possible that some of those wild rules that you mentioned, you don’t understand them because you haven’t actually studied why they are in place a) for the people they were originally written to and b) What is required of us today. I allude to that a bit in a response to Jonathan below.3)Children becoming equals:    You are trying to apply a cultural point of view on what your western lifestyle tells you is the norm for relationship development b/w you and your parents. If you grew up in E.Asia or even the middle east you would never be considered an “equal” to your parents or elders as long as they are alive. That’s because no matter how much life you have lived, they still have lived longer and have gained a bunch of life wisdom that you have not.     Unless you can outlive God then your wisdom is still considered small and finite compared to that of an infinite Father. So your example of the child growing up to be an equal is strictly a western culture idea.4) God not punishing for disobedience?
     Go back and re-read most of the Old Testament of the Bible. It is     
     filled with punishment as a direct consequence to disobedience.
       a) Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden of Eden
       b) Israel’s captivity by the Egyptians
       c) Sodom and Gomorrah 
       d) Israel’s captivity by the Babylonians and Persians
       etc, etc, etc

I wish I *had* written that, that’s even better.

1) We are not 2 year olds. We DO have cognitive skills. We CAN analyze the reasons for a rule. It’s clear that these old rules were made by primitive people who had a poor understanding of the world around them. They weren’t made by a just and loving god that wanted us to have a peaceful, successful society. If that were true, there would have been no rules for keeping (and even beating) slaves. The rule would have been: Thou shalt not own another human being. It’s as simple as that.
　
2) Like slave keeping? Like the death sentence for a woman who does not scream loud enough during a rape? Why would laws like this EVER have been moral, for people of ANY time? Things like this ONLY make sense if it were HUMANS making these laws, not gods.
　
3) It’s actually Christianity that’s trying to apply this cultural point of view. I was not the one suggesting that a parent-child relationship exists. That is a Christian analogy. I am saying that this is a BAD analogy. I don’t know of ANY culture that keeps its children permanently infantilized and NEVER grants them the personal sovereignty of adulthood.
　
4) The ultimate punishment is being forbidden from entering Heaven. God does not bar people from Heaven for disobedience, only for disbelief.
　
But let’s consider these other punishments. Are you saying that your god maintains a criminal justice system where, in ADDITION to being punished with Hell in the afterlife, people are ALSO punished for independent crimes? So, they are punished TWICE? Even OUR justice system is not so corrupt and unfair.
　
Are you saying that things like natural disasters and invading nations are the tools god uses to dish out punishment? Does this go for disease as well? Is this still true today? Can god’s will be deduced from modern day earthquakes or oil spills? Can ANYONE decode god’s intended message from these events? Can we trust them all, even if they contradict?
　
Was god punishing Poland when Germany invaded? Were the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians just god’s puppets, unable to act on their own motivations? Were they RIGHT to enslave the Israelites, since they were doing god’s work for him?
　
These stories and claims just don’t jive with what I understand about reality, OR with what I understand about justice and punishment. Instead, they jive with what I understand about primitive assessments and mythology. I can’t much accept a claim that god punished Adam & Eve by evicting them from a magic garden, if I don’t believe that there were any such people or place. Humanity developed from lower life forms evolving into higher forms. We aren’t the product of a 2-person gene pool (more like a gene thimble) who were punished for daring to seek the knowledge of good and evil on the advice of a talking snake. This is MYTH.

Momma J summarized: “Your weak human mind cannot hope to understand God; therefore you need me to understand him for you.  Trust me.”

The human body has numerous other design flaws. You can probably find something on Google.

For example:
*We can’t synthesize Vitamin C like many other animals, which leads to death when suffering from a poor diet
*Our spine isn’t made for upright walking, which is why so many people suffer from disk problems as they get older
*The appendix
*In our eyes, the blood vessels and nerve fibers pass in front of the retina and the optical nerve goes through the retina, creating a blind spot. Cephalopods (squids, octopuses) have this fixed. Their eyes evolved independently

Ignorant tribes-men? How is a doctor that spoke 3 languages ignorant? 

The content of the Bible does have a solution, but you have to understand the root of the problem first before you get it. 

Did this really happen? I have a few friends that could really use your help, and we’ll see if it works on them too. I would have to say that MOST evidence points in any direction BUT your God. But hey, if we cannot find any other more logical reason for which that guy was suddenly not blind, then ok! We’ll have to test it again and again, because thats what good science does!

. . . . Wow. You actually tried defending slavery. Is genocide next?

No. There’s nothing that justifies the kidnapping of people to make them slaves, making prisoners of war into slaves, or basically slavery, period. Whether it somehow makes it easier for the slave to “relay (sic) on God,” a questionable value at best, is irrelevant. Forcing servitude onto another human being is immoral, and deserves only condemnation. 

And the story of Job only shows a man unwilling to part ways with his abuser. There are unfortunate psychological aspects that feed into a victim’s inability to break with their abuser, and the God of Job is apparently a master at manipulating those. God allowed/caused all that to happen to Job, including the loss of his wife and children, all to prove a point to the devil? That is evil. Pure, plain, and simple evil.If such a God truly exists, then he deserves condemnation and disgust, not worship. Since he doesn’t exist, then at the moment, *you* disgust me.

And a quick point to the “disbelief=disobedience” bit: if the all-powerful God isn’t willing to provide concrete, solid proof of his existence, then the only one to blame is God. To blame us for seeking evidence is also immoral.

Good news: 
http://tinyurl.com/dxpgyxh

Good news: There’s a vaccine for HPV, a leading cause of cervical cancer.

Good news: Our troops are out of Iraq.

Good news: DADT is repealed.

Good news: Slavery is illegal in the USA.

Good news: Women are (in principle) equal in our society.

Good news: People continue to fight to make principle=practice, regarding women’s rights.

Good news: http://tinyurl.com/cf4x76c

Good news: . . . actually, screw it, others can add to the list. Finding good news in this world isn’t that hard to do.

Humans are good, and humans are bad. This is a fact. The bad lets them write books claiming that God says it’s ok for the Chosen People to take slaves, so long as they’re prisoners of war. It lets them try to justify such behavior under “it’s a test for the slave” millenia later. It lets them abuse, rape, murder, cheat, steal, lie, get jealous, get possessive, claim that disbelief in absence of evidence is sin, claim that it’s more important to believe a particular empirical claim than it is to be empathetic to others, etc.

The good lets us fight against all of the bad. It lets some of us spend thousands of dollars and years of our lives becoming doctors, lawyers who actually care about justice, cops, firemen, soldiers who protect freedom, bloggers who argue and stand up to any who would take away our rights in the name of religion, and who support charities for the less fortunate. Good is what lets us buy gifts for our loved ones, and donate to the less fortunate. Good is why many will choose less lucrative jobs than they could otherwise get, just so they can do something that benefits others.

Good is what you get when you let reason, empathy, and respect for others guide your actions. Evil is what you get when you ignore reason, dehumanize others, and ignore any empathy you might feel. 

Putting my reply here, so that it’s actually legible. Sorry I haven’t replied earlier, time got away from me (it tends to do that).

You haven’t defended slavery from the slaver’s point of view, but the defense you’ve given of it is almost as good, as it gives the slaver something to latch onto as a defense. “We’re helping the slave!” Which, by a strange coincidence, is very similar to what slaveholders did pre-Civil War in America.

What more can be required of Slavery, in reference to the negro, than has been done? It has made him, from a savage, an orderly and efficient labourer. It supports him in comfort and peace. It restrains his vices. It improves his mind, orals and manners. It instructs him in Christian knowledge.

Source: http://www1.assumption.edu/users/lknoles/douglassproslaveryargs.html

As for the rich giving away their money, what percentage would satisfy you? 10%, as recommended for tithing? Regardless, that the rich are not usually seen doing due diligence to the welfare of their fellow humans is a black spot against them, I’ll agree, but that in no way makes slavery a good thing. And yet, there is nowhere in the Bible any word spoken against slavery as an institution. 

Yes, I would say that you are both good and bad, as is organized religion. In your case, I cannot judge the relative balance of good vs evil in you, but in the case of organized religion, I judge the balance to be tipped to the side of evil. It has oppressed women, physically, mentally, and emotionally. It does this even today, right here in America. I’ve debated an otherwise liberal woman over whether it is proper for a woman to seek her father’s permission to marry, despite it being the 21st century! The uphill battle for equal rights for LGBTQ folk, the struggles -past and present- to get good information on safer sex into the minds of children, the endless cycle of guilt brought on by a doctrine of Original Sin, the forced ignorance of the most powerful explanatory tool for biology and medicine brought on by creationist nonsense, and many, many more, causes what little good religion has done to pale in comparison. And what good it has done, can be done by secular institutions (see Freedom From Belief foundation, see the Non-Believers Giving Aid Disaster Relief Fund, see the Humanist Community Project at Harvard as examples, and not exhaustive examples).

Here’s a few bad things from the teachings of the New Testament Jesus that I consider bad, and I consider any who agree with this teachings to be bad to the extent they agree:
Matthew 5:21-22: “You have heard it said that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.” 

–Anger can be destructive, and lead to hate. But it is also a good, healthy emotion when used to spur one to action, when targeted against injustice, and when it keeps us from being apathetic. Also, notice the threat of eternal burning.

Matthew 5:27-28: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’” 

–Like anger, we have another thought crime. Oddly, it’s one that seems designed to prevent many an initial attraction that leads to romance and love. I doubt I would have bothered pursuing my wife without some lust involved. The only problem with lust is the actions taken in response to it, not it’s mere existence in your heart.

Matthew 5:31-32: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I way to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” 

–Really? If two people are no longer in love, then to force them into remaining married -and presumably monogamous- is wrong. If anything can make a mockery of the marriage relationship, it’s not same-sex marriage, it’s that verse, right there.

Matthew 5:38: “But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” 

–So not right. Evil needs to be resisted. You don’t have to be violent. Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted, and encouraged many others to resist, but he wasn’t violent.

Matthew 8:21-22: Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” 

–Yea, we should generally focus on life, but damn dude, let the guy grieve!

Matthew 10:14-15 (said to the twelve disciples, instructing them on how to spread his word): “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” 

–Nice that he says not to pester people that don’t want to be converted. Totally NOT nice that he says the unconverted will be getting it worse than those in Sodom and Gomorrah. You remember those towns, right?

Matthew 10:32-33: “So every one who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. 

–There’s that disbelief being a sin thing you mentioned. I’ll reiterate, that’s the fault of a God that won’t make damn sure we know he’s real. But beyond that, to imply the threat of eternal torture for mere disbelief?? Wow, so not right. Oh, and if you prefer to interpret this verse as denying Jesus even if you believe, then you get a nice “with me or against me vibe,” with no allowance for honest disagreement.

Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” 

–Please don’t ever claim that Christianity is a religion of peace, when Jesus himself said he came for war.

Matthew 10:35-37: “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter- in- law against her mother- in- law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” 

–Um, no. I’m not even sure how to express how very wrong that is.

Matthew 12:31-32: “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” 

–I guess people can stop praying for me. I’m pretty sure I’ve done plenty of that in this comment alone. But just so we’re clear, the only unforgivable sin is not rape, child rape, murder, incitement to war, genocide, stealing Grandma’s retirement fund, harassment, infanticide, beastiality, necrophilia,  lying, cheating, stealing, human sacrifice (naturally), oppression, slavery, contract breaking, or anything else that might actually be, you know, WRONG, but simply speaking against the supposedly good “Holy Spirit.” 

Matthew 13:49-50: “So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”  
–Eternal torture. For finite crime. That is not justice. That is not love. That is evil. If you’re right, Momma J, and God exists and will do all these things the Bible says, but the wife you mentioned dies an unbeliever, will you be happy in heaven, knowing she’s in hell? Forever? 

One more, relevant to every atheist and skeptic:

Mark 8:11-12: The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation need a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.” 

–Wrong, wrong, wrong! You want belief? You want trust? You want me to think you more worthy than John Edwards or Uri Geller? Give me the evidence, give me the proof. Otherwise, piss off, because you deserve no belief.

You, yourself, Momma J, have not offended me directly. But to the extent that you support any of the above verses, supposedly spoken by Jesus, then you do disgust me. That’s not friendly of me, perhaps (and so I apologize to Hemant), but it is truth. 

(I take no credit for compiling those verses, that credit goes to Greta Christina at http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2008/06/30/the-screwed-up-teachings-of-jesus/ ;However, the judgments are my own, and the agreements with Greta’s judgments a happy coincidence.)

I am really thankful to you for this nice and beautiful information.I really like this.
cord covers